Published on:

Defendant Say He Cannot Be Indicted on Uncorroborated Testimony


The fifteen year old alleged kid victim related that on July 13, the accused approached him in back of a store and started to talk to him about different things, such as drugs and pinball machines. The accused reached into his pocket for some old coins. He accused the kid of having stolen the coins. He made the kid believe that he did a telephone call to a man pretending audibly that the man on the telephone owns a store and was missing the coins which the kid possessed. The accused borrowed money from the witness; bought a bottle of wine and walked with the kid to the river. A New York DWI Lawyer said he accused man forced the complainant kid to drink some of the wine, after which he removed the kid’s clothes and reciprocal oral sodomy took place, as well as other forms of deviate sexual intercourse. The kid participated under fear of bodily harm, remembering stories of kids being killed down by the river. Following the experience, they walked away from the river and the kid succeeded in running away from the accused man. He arrived at a gas station and wanted to call his home or the police, but was unsuccessful because of lack of money. He then walked home and reported his experience to his Grandmother and Father and then to the police.

The gas station owner testified that the alleged kid victim came running to his gas station and asked to borrow a dime to call the police. The kid told the witness of having been attacked down by the river. The kid appeared to be shook up, nervous and he wasn’t crying. He pointed out a man in a white shirt and dark pants who he said had just attacked him, but the witness stated that he would not be able to identify him.

A gas station employee was the last witness to testify. A New York DWI Lawyer said he was employed by the store in which the alleged victim and the accused man appeared and the telephone call was made concerning the old coins. He confirmed what the kid, the alleged victim, had previously told the Grand Jury with respect to the accused man’s audible conversation with a man concerning missing coins. After the phone call, they walked out of an entrance way that leads into an alley and the boy seemed to be arguing he didn’t do it, and he kept his hand on the shoulder and pushed him out the back entrance.

The accused man, by indictment, has been accused committing two criminal acts, the crime of sexual abuse and the crime of sodomy. The said criminal acts are described in separate sections of Article 130, entitled Sex Offenses, of the Revised Penal Law. The indictment accuses the accused man of violating the penal law. The section provides that a person is guilty of sexual abuse when he subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion. The second count of the indictment accuses the accused man of violating the law which provides that a person is guilty of sodomy when being 21 years old or more, he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than 17 years old.

The accused man has moved for a dismissal of the indictment on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence presented before the Grand Jury to sustain it. He cites that the Revised Penal Law, being a part of the aforementioned Article 130, which provides, in substance, that no person shall be convicted of any offense defined in said Article solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim. As stated above, both criminal acts are contained within the said Article 130 and accordingly are subject to the application of said law requiring corroboration of the alleged victim’s testimony. The insufficiency of the indictment, the accused man maintains, is found in the lack of evidence before the Grand Jury corroborating the testimony of the alleged victim. He reasons and argues that if a person cannot be convicted of the crimes without such corroboration, then an indictment must not stand against him which was found without corroboration which satisfies the requirement spelled out in so many words.

The presumption is that an indictment is based upon legal and sufficient evidence until there is satisfactory proof to the contrary. The isolated issue is whether the Grand Jury Minutes disclose evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the alleged victim and thereby satisfy the requirement of corroboration. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said a review of the Minutes of the Grand Jury pertinent to the issue is obviously a demanding requirement.

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment would, if unexplained or un-contradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury. The evidence before the Grand Jury, in order to sustain an indictment, must be sufficient to convict the accused man, otherwise, the accused should not be put to trial, and the indictment should be dismissed.

Kids are more prone to being taken advantaged off because they trust everyone around them. When kids’ trusts are broken, it would create a negative effect in their personality. The NY Sex Crime Lawyers and the New York Criminal Attorneys from Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help kids to defend themselves from those who offended them and to make sure that such things would not happen again.

Posted in: , and
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information